DCBL / HV Parking 2014 letter! haha!

riseup

Reading through the recent posts it seems lots of us have had debt recovery letters from 'contraventions' dating back to 2014 from DCBL.


I think it seems the best plan for us all is to
1. IGNORE. Do not respond at all. No need to for debt crawlers.

2. Ignore any subsequent 2nd letter however heavy it sounds.
3. If a letter of claim for court proceedings actually follows then return here for advice on best course of action.


Any additional or different advice?


hilariously desperate that they're dragging up 5 year old cases, but also very annoying!

beamerguy

I rather think that the word is out that DCBL are mugs, free chase up letters, DCBL pays the bill for these and if they fail to collect so what

Maybe DCBL don't understand the minds of scammers

twhitehousescat

beamerguy wrote: »

I rather think that the word is out that DCBL are mugs, free chase up letters, DCBL pays the bill for these and if they fail to collect so what

Maybe DCBL don't understand the minds of scammers

umm no , about 50% will simply pay up coz they do not want grief/agro n over xmas

they will pay the ticket + DCBL "cut"

Coupon-mad

Sadly that is true.

Look how many threads are being posted by people who have gone and ignored easily beatable PCNs and have no clue what to do now (not this OP, but all the rest have been clueless and a real chore to answer again, and again).

This scam survives because the British public are gullible and the Supreme Court and the DFT were impressed by the pathetic arguments of BPA and IPC funded suits who give this industry an undeserved air of legitimacy.

riseup

Had a further "Pre Enforcement Letter" from DCBL. I know it's them trying to be scary, and this is not a letter of claim but I'm wondering are they actually entitled or allowed to say the following?.....


"After further applications have been granted by the court the possible impact to you could be;
-enables enforcement action to commence, such as applying for a warrant/writ of control to remove goods
-obtaining an Attachment of Earnings
-Placing a Charging Order on your property
-prevent future lending"


Surely they are well beyond their rights to say these things!

beamerguy

riseup wrote: »

Had a further "Pre Enforcement Letter" from DCBL. I know it's them trying to be scary, and this is not a letter of claim but I'm wondering are they actually entitled or allowed to say the following?.....


"After further applications have been granted by the court the possible impact to you could be;
-enables enforcement action to commence, such as applying for a warrant/writ of control to remove goods
-obtaining an Attachment of Earnings
-Placing a Charging Order on your property
-prevent future lending"


Surely they are well beyond their rights to say these things!

And it's this type of rubbish letter that you complain to the SRA about.

It is DCBL rubbish as it's not been to court and you know what, with their current £70 plus VAT add on scam, they are not going to win and will be very truly spanked.

You can reply to them asking ...
1: Has the PPC instructed you to add the amount of £70 + VAT
2: On what legal authority do DCBL have to add this amount ?

They have no authority and their reply will no doubt be of interest to a judge

If it gets to go to court ... they can do one of two things

** LIE TO THE COURT
** ADMIT TO THEIR ERROR

nosferatu1001

They CAN sate those, because they added
"After further applications have been granted by the court the possible impact to you could be;"
That is a true statement. Just notice the THREE caveats - that FURTHER applications have been granted BY THE COURT, there are POSSIBLE impacts.

beamerguy

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

They CAN sate those, because they added
"After further applications have been granted by the court the possible impact to you could be;"
That is a true statement. Just notice the THREE caveats - that FURTHER applications have been granted BY THE COURT, there are POSSIBLE impacts.

Did I miss something, it's not even been to court ?

riseup

Did I miss something, it's not even been to court ?

Sure, not been to court. I think nosferatu1001 is saying they are using ifs buts and maybes to get away with making ridiculous threats

nosferatu1001

Beamer - youre not missing anything

They never state it has already been to court. to whit: After further applications have been granted by the court

They never state there has already been an application (to court), they do not state it has been granted, they just state their client CAN make further applications.
It is, in a strictest sense, true. it *may* be misleading, but I reckon they have caveated enough that if read carefully the meaning is there.

beamerguy

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Beamer - youre not missing anything

They never state it has already been to court. to whit: After further applications have been granted by the court

They never state there has already been an application (to court), they do not state it has been granted, they just state their client CAN make further applications.
It is, in a strictest sense, true. it *may* be misleading, but I reckon they have caveated enough that if read carefully the meaning is there.

OK, so it's the feeble words of a back street trader

As many will read this as a fact and what is about to happen.
It's misleading and menacing and hence should be reported to the SRA
The parking scam is bad enough without the cr*p of a back street trader.